Contradictory functions in higher education’s contribution to social equity

1. Contradictory functions in higher education’s contribution to social equity John Brennan Centre for Higher Education Research and Information The Open University, UK Symposium on Equity in Higher Education, Ljubljana, November, 2010

2. Equity, social justice and higher education ‘Import’ notions Social compositions of HE students and staff How can they be made more representative of the larger society? ‘Export’ notions ‘How can we contribute to the creation of a more equitable, respectful and just society for everyone?’ (Zaijda, 2006) ‘Making the hoard of knowledge produced or preserved by universities available to society more broadly’ (Calhoun, 2006)

3. Assumptions of ‘liberal’ theorists: education and ‘progressive social change’(Rob Moore, 2005) • Producing the ‘human capital’ required by an increasingly high-skill, science-based economy’ • Promoting ‘civic’ values and behaviour appropriate to advanced liberal democracy • Developing a ‘meritocratic’ selection system (‘achieved’ rather than ‘ascribed’ status) • Facilitating an ‘open society’ characterised by high levels of social mobility reflecting the relationship between ability and opportunity

4. Assumptions of ‘elite reproduction’ theorists: Education maintaining privilege and power (Rob Moore, 2005) • Reproduce the privileges and dominance of the ruling class • Secure the legitimacy of capitalist social relations through the inculcation of the dominant ideology • Block the development of counter-hegemonic working-class consciousness that could effectively challenge capitalism • Systematically prepare pupils for their differentiated future positions within the capitalist economy and social structure

5. Policy assumptions:some examples OECD (2006): ‘promote democracy, tolerance and social cohesion’ and ‘fuel economic development through creation of knowledge and skills’ IAU (2005): ‘instil the critical thinking that underpins responsible citizenship’ CoE (2006): developing ‘democratic culture’, ‘active citizenship’ and ‘well-being of whole society’, ‘human rights and social justice’, ‘environmental sustainability and dialogue’

6. General observations on policy messages • National bodies tend to place greater emphasis on the ‘economic’ and international organisations more likely to emphasise equity and social justice? • Nationally, equity considerations may be subsidiary to the economic (full utilisation of national talent for wealth creation)? • Inevitably, international organisations tend to emphasise mobility and trans-national education • Policy bodies tend to be critical of HE’s performance in terms of equity and participation • But make brave and optimistic statements about what is possible – ‘liberal assumptions’

7. ‘The social construction of legitimate difference’ • HE can provide opportunities for people to ‘succeed’ in a meritocratic society. • Achievement in HE ‘legitimises’ this success. “differential status and differential income are based on technical skills and higher education, and few places are open to those without such qualifications” (Bell, 1974)

8. “It’s all your own fault if you don’t succeed” • Credentials getting more important in determination of life chances. • There is unequal access to credentials. • Credentials are a vital route to social mobility – but possibilities of ‘status congestion’. • Credentials link with and may disguise continuing importance of other social and cultural factors. • Differentiation – different ‘classes of higher education’ come to serve different social classes. • Opportunity structures and ‘social order’.

9. Empirical literature on access and participation shows…. • Large differences in HE participation rates between social and cultural groups • Expansion of enrolments fails to help • Barriers include ‘cost’, ‘entry qualifications’, ‘lack of flexibility (curriculum and learning)’, ‘limited support services’, ‘institutional culture’ (Thomas, 2001) • Different conclusions about whether problems lie within HE or elsewhere • Importance of institutional differentiation – functions of ‘elite’ and ‘mass’ sectors/institutions

10. The UK case: maintaining ‘elite’ in ‘mass’ • A society marked by high levels of social inequality • A higher education system marked by strong ‘vertical differentiation’ • ‘Where’ you study matters more than ‘what’ you study • ‘Where’ you study is largely determined by your social background

11. The UK case:A route to social mobility • Entering higher education is a major route to social mobility • ‘Small steps for the many’ rather than ‘giant leaps for the few’ (Chapman) • A ‘training and skills’ agenda for the masses – meeting economic needs • ‘Unintended’ consequences of personal transformation

12. On ‘exporting’ social equity…. Credential inflation….. “expanded access may imply more open and meritocratic distribution of existing credentials, but of course it actually produces an inflation in credentials and a new emphasis on prestige differentiations among apparently identical credentials” (Calhoun, 2006) And credentials combine with factors connected with social and cultural capital in determination of life chances.

13. Wider benefits? • Private and public benefits? • Benefits especially for non-participants • Linked to debates about ‘marketisation’, ‘management and accountability’, ‘perceived erosion of academic autonomy’ • Linked to theories of ‘social capital’, ‘class and gender reproduction’.

14. No shortage of claims….. • University as ‘pivotal institution in… …process of collective self-enlightenment’ (Barnett, 2000) • Public benefits through contribution to economic success • And through contribution to democracy • And through taking ‘truth’ to ‘power’, maintaining ‘critical space’

15. Research agenda (on participation) • Equity at entry and exit • Regional disparities and local actions • Better understanding of and reasons for country differences (including secondary education effects) • Effects of different HE structures, especially types of differentiation, lifelong learning etc • Effects of initiatives to widen participation • Effects of increasing international mobility • Different issues for different social groups • Non-participation: values/aspirations of youth